Democrats’ Armageddon Option

[exGOPer]

Today, one of the more significant institutional voices against expanding the court is … Joe Biden. In July 2019, Biden said “we’ll live to rue that day” if the court was expanded. In a debate, he said it would lead to round after round of expansion and the court would “lose all credibility.” Senator Bernie Sanders, no stranger to radical ideas, has also said he doesn’t want to pack the court. So has the more moderate Michael Bennet.

And?

Nobody likes this option but it has to be done, there is no other way to fight back against the shameful power grab. Replacing RBG with some wing nut who preaches like the Taliban is the last straw.

 

[kmgilroy89]

McConnell’s motives aren’t actually indiscernible. One can deduce them by observing the Democrats’ growing chatter about court-packing: To frankly admit that the Supreme Court is a partisan, policy-making entity — and that its decisions are now of such profound ideological consequence that polarized parties can’t be expected to let norms constrain their attempts to gain judicial supremacy — would be to imperil the entire conservative judicial project.

The greatest trick conservative judicial activism ever pulled was convincing the world it doesn’t exist.
The American right’s agenda is unpopular. A majority of voters may support the Hyde Amendment, but they do not support the overturning of Roe v. Wade or the establishment of fetal personhood. Americans may be skeptical of “big government” as an abstract concept. But they like the Clean Air Act, and believe that Uncle Sam has a responsibility to ensure universal healthcare. And the conservative agenda is poised to grow more anti-majoritarian in the coming years, as the unprecedentedly left-wing millennial and zoomer generations reach their prime voting years.

In this context, the existence of a counter-majoritarian policy-making entity — that is broadly perceived as being above politics and which can advance conservative goals by declaring them constitutionally necessary (as opposed to having to persuade the public of their substantive merit) — is immensely valuable to the GOP. And this is all the more true now that Trump has packed the judiciary with Federalist Society 40-somethings. With a mere five conservative Supreme Court justices, Republicans have managed to ban limitations on corporate political spending, gut the Voting Rights Act, pare back Medicaid expansion, restrict the capacity of consumers and workers to sue corporations that abuse them, and stamp out school-desegregation efforts, among other things. Almost all these measures would have been too unpopular to enact through the (semi-) democratic branches of the U.S. government. And yet, the Roberts Court has not only assembled a record of conservative policy-making more far-reaching than Donald Trump’s — it has also managed to do so while retaining the approval of 56 percent of Democrats in Gallup’s most recent poll.

The fiction of an apolitical judiciary —whose judges harbor disparate constitutional philosophies but not loyalties to competing ideological projects — enables conservatives to enact much of their political agenda with little public awareness, let alone pushback. Each year, a select few Supreme Court cases become major news, while the vast majority pass by unnoticed by the median voter. This is an ideal setup for an anti-majoritarian ideological movement. And conservatives safeguard that setup by dutifully framing their judicial ambitions in ideologically neutral terms. So, McConnell did not justify blocking Obama’s 2016 Supreme Court nominee by noting Garland’s pro-labor jurisprudence would impede conservative economic goals. Rather, he appealed to popular sovereignty: Let the people decide who gets to pick the next justice. Similarly, in an editorial calling for Republicans to replace Ginsburg before Election Day, the National Review does not argue that fortifying a conservative Supreme Court majority is vital for advancing the right’s ideological aims, but rather, for advancing “constitutionalism on the Court” (as though there were one objective approach to applying the ambiguous language of an 18th-century document to 21st-century legal disputes, and that this entirely non-ideological approach just so happens to dictate conservative policy outcomes in virtually all cases).

If the McConnell rule is dead, then court-packing is permitted.

I don't disagree with your points, but I disagree with you your conclusion. The country leans more left than our representative government. This is partially structural. The senate is the most structurally favored to represent Republicans. This is evident as Trump won 29 states (58%) in 2016 and lost the popular vote by 2%. We are talking about a 9 point swing there. Blue states are overall more populated than red states, but it doesn't matter, each state gets 2 Senate seats. Democrats also need to win the popular voter by at least 3% to win the presidency right now, because of the electoral college. If Biden wins in 2020 then in 2022 NV, CO, AZ, and NH Senate seats will have a high probability of flipping (since midterms hurt the incumbent). If you think the Dems can keep control based on demographics, well it hasn't happened yet. Biden is likely a one term president and given Americans short attention spans (look at 2010 after the 2008 crisis/Iraq War) we will be likely to elect a GOP president again. Whoever wins the GOP nomination is likely to say that they agreed with Trump's policies in the primary, but denounce his tone in the General, and will run that he is a uniter, claiming that Kamala Harris (honestly a weak candidate and will likely be the nominee) is too far left for the country. Point is, if you don't think that the GOP can control the 3 branches of government again, I think you're wrong. If this all happens the GOP could put 9 more judges on the court if they wish. In my opinion, further dismantling the filibuster and increasing the number of judges is the wrong direction to go. I personally feel major changes to our laws should include broad consensus (60 votes). It shouldn't change based on whether the country becomes 51-49 one way or the other or reversals will be too common.

 

[vanzandt]

And?

Nobody likes this option but it has to be done, there is no other way to fight back against the shameful power grab. Replacing RBG with some wing nut who preaches like the Taliban is the last straw.

I don't think it'll fly. Too many lawyers in Congress, they realize the importance of it. They did after all pledge to uphold the Constitution, the balance of power is the most integral part of the whole shootin' match. If ya'll had won the Senate in 2018 we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we? Should have thought about Ruthie and Mitch way back then.

You still have Samoa though.
2 more Senators there for team Chuck.

 

[exGOPer]

I don't think it'll fly. Too many lawyers in Congress, they realize the importance of it. They did after all pledge to uphold the Constitution, the balance of power is the most integral part of the whole shootin' match. If ya'll had won the Senate in 2018 we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we? Should have thought about Ruthie and Mitch way back then.

You still have Samoa though.
2 more Senators there for team Chuck.

Yes, too many lawyers realize that legislating from the bench where entire legislative accomplishments which the majority of public approve are being stuck down by right wing ideologues appointed by impeached criminals is not a good thing.

Thanks for Samoa, I am sure it can never be good as either of the Dakotas.

 

[exGOPer]

I don't disagree with your points, but I disagree with you your conclusion. The country leans more left than our representative government. This is partially structural. The senate is the most structurally favored to represent Republicans. This is evident as Trump won 29 states (58%) in 2016 and lost the popular vote by 2%. We are talking about a 9 point swing there. Blue states are overall more populated than red states, but it doesn't matter, each state gets 2 Senate seats. Democrats also need to win the popular voter by at least 3% to win the presidency right now, because of the electoral college. If Biden wins in 2020 then in 2022 NV, CO, AZ, and NH Senate seats will have a high probability of flipping (since midterms hurt the incumbent). If you think the Dems can keep control based on demographics, well it hasn't happened yet. Biden is likely a one term president and given Americans short attention spans (look at 2010 after the 2008 crisis/Iraq War) we will be likely to elect a GOP president again. Whoever wins the GOP nomination is likely to say that they agreed with Trump's policies in the primary, but denounce his tone in the General, and will run that he is a uniter, claiming that Kamala Harris (honestly a weak candidate and will likely be the nominee) is too far left for the country. Point is, if you don't think that the GOP can control the 3 branches of government again, I think you're wrong. If this all happens the GOP could put 9 more judges on the court if they wish. In my opinion, further dismantling the filibuster and increasing the number of judges is the wrong direction to go. I personally feel major changes to our laws should include broad consensus (60 votes). It shouldn't change based on whether the country becomes 51-49 one way or the other or reversals will be too common.

This is fine if not for the fact that a wingnut conservative SC will undo every progressive change for the next 30 years, that cannot be allowed.

 

[kmgilroy89]

This is fine if not for the fact that a wingnut conservative SC will undo every progressive change for the next 30 years, that cannot be allowed.

Incumbents tend to lose legislators in the subsequent years after re-election. Think of what could be done with 50 conservative senators, a GOP House, and GOP president without a filibuster. In 2024 many of the seats won by Democrats (WV, MT, WI, MI, PA, NV, OH, and AZ could all flip back to the GOP). An Obamacare repeal lost by just 1 vote when there were only 3 moderates in the party (Collins, McCain, and Murkowski) and that didn't need 60 votes. If Democrats remove the filibuster they will rue the day.

 

[kmgilroy89]

I'll be honest, if the Dems take the Senate it's likely they have 50 or 51 Senators. Manchin, Sinema, and Tester are against it. Luckily I don't think they could add a FTT in reconciliation. That would be a major change to the tax code.

 

[exGOPer]

Incumbents tend to lose legislators in the subsequent years after re-election. Think of what could be done with 50 conservative senators, a GOP House, and GOP president without a filibuster. In 2024 many of the seats won by Democrats (WV, MT, WI, MI, PA, NV, OH, and AZ could all flip back to the GOP). An Obamacare repeal lost by just 1 vote when there were only 3 moderates in the party (Collins, McCain, and Murkowski) and that didn't need 60 votes. If Democrats remove the filibuster they will rue the day.

That's fine, the entire Conservative Judicial project is about pretending that the judges are some neutral body to neutralize Democrats' demographic advantage, if they want to make the judiciary look like a partisan tool then it completely exposes them and removes the mask of judiciary being a check on legislative overreach.

 

[smallfil]

Actually, the dems have been attempting to pack the court since the 30s.

Pinkerton: The Democrats’ Long History of Trying to Pack the Supreme Court

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-history-of-trying-to-pack-the-supreme-court/

Democrats Talk Tough

Rep. Joe Kennedy III, Democrat of Massachusetts, got right to the point when he tweeted on September 19, “If he holds a vote in 2020, we pack the court in 2021. It’s that simple.”

Kennedy was saying that if Donald Trump nominates a candidate for the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg this year, then next year the Democrats will expand the court and pack it with liberals and progressives—if, of course, they get back in charge.

“Packing the court” is a loaded phrase, reaching back to a failed Democratic effort to expand the court in the 1930s. Indeed, that experience nine decades ago was so disastrous for the Democrats that, if they knew their own history, they would be fleeing from the phrase “court-packing,” not embracing it.

Extreme liberal Democrats are just such utter hypocrites when they argue that Ruth Bader-Ginsburg's seat must remain unfilled? Obama trying to appoint Merrick Garland who is an extreme liberal judge into Antonin Scalia's spot? Are the Democrats going to say that is not politically motivated? Of course it is, they wanted to add 1 more extreme liberal judge in the US Supreme Court. So, it is but, fair. Democrats can have a go at it if they gain the majority in the Senate and win the US Presidency. I am sure nothing will stop them. They never respect any laws anyways.

 

[exGOPer]

Extreme liberal Democrats are just such utter hypocrites when they argue that Ruth Bader-Ginsburg's seat must remain unfilled? Obama trying to appoint Merrick Garland who is an extreme liberal judge into Antonin Scalia's spot? Are the Democrats going to say that is not politically motivated? Of course it is, they wanted to add 1 more extreme liberal judge in the US Supreme Court. So, it is but, fair. Democrats can have a go at it if they gain the majority in the Senate and win the US Presidency. I am sure nothing will stop them. They never respect any laws anyways.

Garland is extreme liberal?

LMFAO